|
Post by bigfan on Oct 24, 2017 12:37:16 GMT -5
The Patriot League has destroyed Holy Cross athletics. Time to get out, CAA for football, A-10 for basketball which should be our main sport.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 24, 2017 12:39:51 GMT -5
Destroyed Holy Cross Athletics? Let's not give the PL credit for something which we seem to have done to ourselves with only a little help from outside.
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Oct 24, 2017 14:43:41 GMT -5
JEB destroyed Holy Cross athletics.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Oct 24, 2017 15:32:29 GMT -5
JEB destroyed Holy Cross athletics. but he got the mascot right
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 24, 2017 15:44:59 GMT -5
The Patriot League has destroyed Holy Cross athletics. Time to get out, CAA for football, A-10 for basketball which should be our main sport. Exactly. Take some lumps and move on. PL has failed, and we have failed the PL. Not all partnerships in life are salvageable. Time to try another idea. Can’t be much worse, but can be significantly better. And drop D1 status on the minor sports.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 24, 2017 16:56:51 GMT -5
You can't select different Divisions in different sports (except for those who were grandparented). Some sports could become clubs (as was done at Rutgers to have a new press box just for recrits) but that move alienated many at that time. Right now there is nowhere to move on to. Does that matter? We do, after all, have a place in the PL.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 24, 2017 17:36:46 GMT -5
I’m suggesting dropping D1 status for minor sports, make them club sports. We do not need all these D1 programs in a school of 2900 students.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 24, 2017 17:48:32 GMT -5
That is dropping the team, not just the D1 status. I thought some of the smaller programs were a financial wash - with HC getting funds from the NCAA to keep the teams going.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Oct 24, 2017 19:12:14 GMT -5
I’m suggesting dropping D1 status for minor sports, make them club sports. We do not need all these D1 programs in a school of 2900 students. Brought up many times in the past including by me. Not allowed by NCAA rules.
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Oct 24, 2017 19:12:59 GMT -5
That is dropping the team, not just the D1 status. I thought some of the smaller programs were a financial wash - with HC getting funds from the NCAA to keep the teams going. IIRC we get about $30k from NCAA for fielding a sport.
|
|
|
Post by jkh67 on Oct 24, 2017 20:01:04 GMT -5
You want fr boroughs to review fb player apps? Of all the things that won’t happen that’s numero uno. This is a function of adnp and Annie. If as we suspect Annie is a road block, adnp should ask each coach to give a couple examples where admissions hurt us. Adnp should then go to Annie and work things out. No. What Boroughs needs to do...and it's on Boroughs, not anyone else... is assure that the admissions folks are not rejecting people the IL or other PL schools will gladly accept. If he's not willing to do that...or do it effectively...he's a major part of the problem, being President and all. If he can't control the admissions office...well, that's another problem, isn't it!?!
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Oct 24, 2017 23:25:10 GMT -5
You want fr boroughs to review fb player apps? Of all the things that won’t happen that’s numero uno. This is a function of adnp and Annie. If as we suspect Annie is a road block, adnp should ask each coach to give a couple examples where admissions hurt us. Adnp should then go to Annie and work things out. No. What Boroughs needs to do...and it's on Boroughs, not anyone else... is assure that the admissions folks are not rejecting people the IL or other PL schools will gladly accept. If he's not willing to do that...or do it effectively...he's a major part of the problem, being President and all. If he can't control the admissions office...well, that's another problem, isn't it!?! The issue if it does exist needs to be brought by adnp to the attention of vellacio /boroughs.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 25, 2017 5:56:11 GMT -5
How is it not allowed to drop sports? I don’t get it. If you’re D1 in football this means you need to field a women’s volleyball team? I don’t think this could possibly be accurate. By club sport, I mean like an intramural. No real NCAA governance, just a bunch of kids who pay a fee and play the sport in some context, against each other or local schools etc. like rugby was. A club. An extracurricular. A fun thing to do in your spare time. Do we really need to field all these teams?
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 25, 2017 6:00:01 GMT -5
How is it not allowed to drop sports? I don’t get it. If you’re D1 in football this means you need to field a women’s volleyball team? I don’t think this could possibly be accurate. By club sport, I mean like an intramural. No real NCAA governance, just a bunch of kids who pay a fee and play the sport in some context, against each other or local schools etc. like rugby was. A club. An extracurricular. A fun thing to do in your spare time. Do we really need to field all these teams? A college can drop one or more sports, but must still be in compliance with Title IX in its overall program. Making a team become a club sport is allowed, but the participants do not count toward fulfilling Title IX regulations. HC could drop some men's sports to club level (as Rutgers did), but these would most likely be men's teams. If that happened, tennis and golf would probably be the first to be changed. There would be no significant financial benefit for HC.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 25, 2017 6:16:58 GMT -5
rgs - yes this is my understanding as well. You have to have an even number if men v women. And in the rules, after all these years, the NCAA is still yet to account for the problem created by the fact that there is no female equivalent to football. You might consider field hockey the partial equivalent since there is no men’s field hockey team, yet.
It would not be a financial windfall to cancel the minor sports, but it would certainly help financially. I can’t help but think it would help clean house to a certain degree so that the current administration could focus on the major sports, and again achieve success.
Men Football Basketball Ice Hockey Baseball
Women Soccer Field hockey Ice hockey Basketball Softball Lacrosse
Women get field hockey, soccer, and lax to equal men’s football. Would that work?
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 25, 2017 6:42:45 GMT -5
That is currently offset by men's soccer and lax. Would you really want to drop track and cross country? I don't believe you need an equal number of teams, just equal opportunity to participate in sports - with a number of athletes and scholarships close to the % of men/women in the college.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 25, 2017 6:47:19 GMT -5
I don't believe you need an equal number of teams, just equal opportunity to participate in sports - with a number of athletes and scholarships close to the % of men/women in the college. I think you are correct...and more than one university has pumped up participation in women's cross country and spring track (inexpensive per-athlete costs) to close that gap a bit. And limiting men's participation/sports to partially offset football.
There is no finessing the matching schollie issue though.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 25, 2017 7:27:07 GMT -5
RGS - If you look at my list, I do not have men's lacrosse or soccer listed as schollie sports. I was thinking that football, as a men's sport, would be offset by the 3 women's sports of lacrosee, field hockey, and soccer, which would have no male equivalent. I don't think field hockey alone would do it. Frankly it probably would not take all 3 women's sports to equal football. Maybe men can have lacrosse or soccer schollies back, under this plan.
Simply stated, my opinion is that if by dropping the minor sports, the major sports could be improved in any significant way, than I would support it. I did track at HC as well as FB, so I'm not just throwing this idea around haphazzardly. HC needs to consider all options.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 25, 2017 7:32:40 GMT -5
HC's identity/brand may depend on a large number of male and female athletes so I would not expect a reduction in either.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Oct 25, 2017 7:33:38 GMT -5
I did, of course, look at your list. Opportunities for participation are judged for men and women. The issue of scholarships is not solved by number of sports but by the number of scholarships and here has to be an equivalent number for men and for women (again based on percent of students). Some could argue that, in terms of scholarships, Holy Cross needs to have some men's sports with no (or fewer) scholarships in order to offset those given in football. The issue can be very complex which is why many (perhaps most) colleges have a compliance officer. He or she is the one who needs to be able to make a case showing their school is Title IX compliant.
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 25, 2017 7:35:36 GMT -5
HC's identity/brand may depend on a large number of male and female athletes so I would not expect a reduction in either.
The Crusader mascot is/was also a large part of HC's identity and brand, as was a good football team, and how's that working out now? I hear what you're saying though. I just think something's gotta give, somewhere, at some point. But hey, if HC can figure out a way to be everything to everybody, cheers to that! I'll keep donating my time and money to the school.
"Holy Cross needs to have some men's sports with no (or fewer) scholarships in order to offset those given in football."
I guess this is all in the way you look at it. If there are more women's sports than men's sports, there would be more participation and scholarship opportunities for women, right? I recall hearing stories of the 1980s when the female track team was throwing scholarships around like hotcakes, simply because they could, under Title 9. This seems bad. This is why I would first suggest cutting back to the essential major men's sports, and choosing select female minor (or sub-major) sports to balance this out. Sorry if I'm being obtuse, or factually incorrect, as this is not an issue I've studied as closely as some.
|
|
|
Post by jkh67 on Oct 25, 2017 8:57:09 GMT -5
No. What Boroughs needs to do...and it's on Boroughs, not anyone else... is assure that the admissions folks are not rejecting people the IL or other PL schools will gladly accept. If he's not willing to do that...or do it effectively...he's a major part of the problem, being President and all. If he can't control the admissions office...well, that's another problem, isn't it!?! The issue if it does exist needs to be brought by adnp to the attention of vellacio /boroughs. If it is indeed true, as many on this board contend, that the HC admissions office is stricter than our PL and IL peers when it comes to athletes, it is inconceivable to me that the senior management of the College are not aware of the problem, either via complaints from Pine or otherwise. The football program has been struggling for years now. Anyone interested in understanding why would look first at coaching and recruiting (where admissions policy is obviously a key factor). Perhaps the senior management really isn't all that interested, despite occasional rhetorical flourishes to the contrary. Either that or they're a remarkably ineffectual group.
|
|
|
Post by 6sader7 on Oct 25, 2017 9:45:54 GMT -5
I believe that the "Senior Management" got a taste of what it was like to have a top rank 1AA Football team in the 80's and they very much did not like it.
The narrative that I've heard is that during that period of time the football team was getting a lot of attention on campus, they were rowdy, they stood out from the rest of the 3,000 student population - Really nothing different than today minus being nationally noticed for football, Lockbaum, etc.
When we talk about the administration at HC, to be candid, you're talking about a bunch of people who grew up intimidated by football players in general. I think they saw a glimpse of what big-time college football could bring to the campus, and the attention the football team could potentially garner, and very quickly moved to put the lid on it once the Duffner era was over.
They do not want to re-visit those days - They want to be a small school with a basketball team that gives the general student/ alumni body (people who generally aren't into sports) something to cheer for or mention at HC Happy hour event.
They're not trying to win, and if they are, they're not smart enough to Administer.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Oct 25, 2017 9:58:40 GMT -5
I believe that the "Senior Management" got a taste of what it was like to have a top rank 1AA Football team in the 80's and they very much did not like it. Not sure what you're talking about here, Frank V certainly liked it. He's now retired and everyone else on Fr B's staff is new
|
|
|
Post by rickii on Oct 25, 2017 10:22:01 GMT -5
I’m suggesting dropping D1 status for minor sports, make them club sports. We do not need all these D1 programs in a school of 2900 students. Brought up many times in the past including by me. Not allowed by NCAA rules. Just to clarify....AIR ( not 100% sure ) the NCAA rule for D-1 status is a minimum of 16 varsity sports ( i.e., 8 men + 8 women ). Agree with joe that 22-24 varsity sports is too many....although Colgate seems to handle that profile well.
|
|